You are here: / / Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner...

Attack on Plaintiff Upon Leaving Defendant-Lodge’s Premises Not Foreseeable—Landowner Had No Duty to Take Measures to Protect Against the Attack—Evidence Lodge Is Located in a “High Crime” Area Insufficient to Render Such an Attack Foreseeable

The Third Department determined the landowner did not have a duty to take measures to protect plaintiff who was assaulted and stabbed after leaving defendant’s fraternal lodge, even though there was evidence the lodge was located in a “high crime” area.  The evidence of prior crimes at the premises was not sufficient to render the attack on plaintiff foreseeable:

Landowners have a duty of reasonable care to maintain their property in a safe condition; although they “have a common-law duty to minimize foreseeable dangers on their property, including the criminal acts of third parties, they are not the insurers of a visitor’s safety” … . Notably, “even where there is an extensive history of criminal conduct on the premises, the landowner cannot be held to a duty to take protective measures unless it is shown that he or she either knows or has reason to know from past experience that there is a likelihood of conduct on the part of third persons which is likely to endanger the safety of the visitor” … . “The scope of the duty varies with the foreseeability of the potential harm” … . Stated another way, “no duty is imposed to protect . . . against unforeseeable and unexpected assaults” …, and “landowners have a duty to control third persons only when they have the opportunity to control such persons and are reasonably aware of the need for such control” … . Prior crimes need not be identical to a present crime in order to put a landowner on notice; “the inquiry of foreseeability depends upon the location, nature and extent of those previous criminal activities and their similarity, proximity or other relationship to the crime in question” … . Finally, although foreseeability is generally an issue to be resolved by the factfinder, it may be determined as a matter of law where the facts are undisputed and permit only one inference to be drawn therefrom … . Milton v IBPOE The World Forest city Lodge, #180, 2014 NY Slip Op 07242, 3rd Dept 10-23-14

 

You might also like
ROBERT F KENNEDY, JR’S NOMINATING PETITION DECLARED INVALID (THIRD DEPT).
Employer Did Not Submit Employee Benefit Plan as Required by Workers’ Compensation Law 25 (4) (c)—Therefore the Employer Was Entitled to Reimbursement Only for the Workers’ Compensation Benefits Paid to the Employee and Not for the Amounts Paid Under the Employee Benefit Plan
Misspellings Did Not Render Signatures Invalid
THE SOURCE CODE USED TO CONNECT DNA FROM THE MURDER SCENE TO THE DEFENDANT GENERATED A REPORT WHICH IMPLICATED THE DEFENDANT AND WAS THEREFORE TESTIMONIAL, HOWEVER, THE SOURCE CODE, AS A FORM OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, WAS NOT THE DECLARANT; THEREFORE THE FACT THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE SOURCE CODE DID NOT VIOLATE HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM (THIRD DEPT).
PRISON INMATE’S COMPLAINT ALLEGING DENIAL OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983 DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE FAILURE TO PRESERVE CERTAIN VIDEO RECORDINGS BUT DID NOT ALLEGE HOW SAID FAILURE HINDERED HIS ACCESS TO THE COURTS (THIRD DEPT).
Where There Is Permanent Partial Disability, the Benefits Are Calculated Based Upon the Difference Between the Pre-Disability Earnings and the Actual Earnings During the Period of Disability
INJURY IN FALL IN EMPLOYER’S PARKING LAW AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT COMPANY’S CONTRACT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WAS NOT VOID; THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THERE WAS NO PROOF THE BID SPECIFICATIONS WERE IMPROPERLY DEVELOPED WITH THE COMPANY OR DESIGNED TO ENSURE THE COMPANY RECEIVED THE CONTRACT (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“But For” Causation Element of Tortious Interference with Contract... Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained